Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

greater manchester to build loads of houses

Recommended Posts

There is plenty of wasteland, brown belt; even existing housing stock in greater manchester. It's just that greenbelt happens to border already expensive, desireable, suburban areas where most profit for the developers can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester is rapidly grinding to a halt as it was never designed to be such a large city and as far as I can tell the developments appear to be a mix of maximum profit taking and maximum density in the most awkward to commute from areas where there are few jobs locally anyway. The nearest Manchester has to a tube system to get around the city is the M60 and that is a bad joke on the West and North sides if you use public transport it is purely geared up to going into the centre and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F'ing Beeching tearing up our rail links, totally messed up some quite decent transport infrastructure with the Greater Manchester Area.

Nice, but they should use more brownfield sites first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who lives and works in manchester I cant but help see the whole "northern powerhouse" rhetoric as wishful thinking. Despite the aspirational building devolpment, it still has lower than uk average levels of productivity and above average levels of poverty. Virtually all its income comes from public spending in one way or another; whether this be the huge numbers of students, public sector jobs, boomer pensions, benefits. This looked great during the early years of new labour; not so sustainable now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tapori said:

.....Nice, but they should use more brownfield sites first.....

 

 

"All 10 council chiefs are agreed former industrial land across the region should be used before any protected space is developed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

There is plenty of wasteland, brown belt; even existing housing stock in greater manchester. It's just that greenbelt happens to border already expensive, desireable, suburban areas where most profit for the developers can be made.

Yep, why build a cheap house when you can build an expensive one? That 100k plus extra in the pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building on green belt would be great if they gave each house a big garden.There is more wildlife in big gardens than there is on farmland.Most fields have zero wildlife as the farmers pull out all the hedges and spray everything to death.Very rare you see any birds out walking average farmland now.

The problem is they build houses with tiny gardens,mostly a bit of grass or paved over.Fences down to the ground so no wildlife like hedgehogs can move about.

It would be far better to build houses with big gardens on green belt land,with hedgerows planted between houses instead of fences and laws saying you could not patio or deck over more than 25% of it and fences must all have a 10cm clearance above the ground.

Hedgerows around the site and also water ditches and ponds and some areas of trees would finish the job.

People and wildlife could then really win from development.Building houses on postage stamp plots is a disaster,apart from to the landowners and the builders.

Edited by durhamborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

Building on green belt would be great if they gave each house a big garden.There is more wildlife in big gardens than there is on farmland.Most fields have zero wildlife as the farmers pull out all the hedges and spray everything to death.Very rare you see any birds out walking average farmland now.

The problem is they build houses with tiny gardens,mostly a bit of grass or paved over.Fences down to the ground so no wildlife like hedgehogs can move about.

It would be far better to build houses with big gardens on green belt land,with hedgerows planted between houses instead of fences and laws saying you could not patio or deck over more than 25% of it and fences must all have a 10cm clearance above the ground.

Hedgerows around the site and also water ditches and ponds and some areas of trees would finish the job.

People and wildlife could then really win from development.Building houses on postage stamp plots is a disaster,apart from to the landowners and the builders.

This - for wildlife and the like.

Farmland is a wildlife desert.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

Building on green belt would be great if they gave each house a big garden.There is more wildlife in big gardens than there is on farmland.Most fields have zero wildlife as the farmers pull out all the hedges and spray everything to death.Very rare you see any birds out walking average farmland now.

The problem is they build houses with tiny gardens,mostly a bit of grass or paved over.Fences down to the ground so no wildlife like hedgehogs can move about.

It would be far better to build houses with big gardens on green belt land,with hedgerows planted between houses instead of fences and laws saying you could not patio or deck over more than 25% of it and fences must all have a 10cm clearance above the ground.

Hedgerows around the site and also water ditches and ponds and some areas of trees would finish the job.

People and wildlife could then really win from development.Building houses on postage stamp plots is a disaster,apart from to the landowners and the builders.

If I'm browsing RM in a moment of weakness looking for our next place I always go through the pictures backwards - if the garden is tiny or there are no garden pics its instantly dismissed. This means 100% of new builds are eliminated instantly.

My current small 1948 2 bed semi has a nice size corner plot with a variety of hedges and trees on the boarders. Sadly almost everyone around seems intent on taking trees out. 3 have gone from next doors garden since I moved in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

This - for wildlife and the like.

Farmland is a wildlife desert.

 

It is,the ironic thing is there is far more wildlife living on brownfield sites than farmland.When we were kids the old closed down factories,old reservoirs,pit heaps etc were full of wildlife,newts,frogs,bats,badgers,kestrels etc.The council came along to "clean up" those sites and the only thing that lives on them now are passing gypos going to Appleby fair.

One area was stuffed with newts and about 10 ponds where mining had gone on.The council filled it in and built a warehouse on it.Roll forward 15 years the same council then spent a fortune building ponds for the new Hitachi plant site to move any disturbed newts to.Problem was there were no newts left,the council had killed them all filling in those ponds years before.These are the people who say you cant build on green belt land.In short,idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

It is,the ironic thing is there is far more wildlife living on brownfield sites than farmland.When we were kids the old closed down factories,old reservoirs,pit heaps etc were full of wildlife,newts,frogs,bats,badgers,kestrels etc.The council came along to "clean up" those sites and the only thing that lives on them now are passing gypos going to Appleby fair.

One area was stuffed with newts and about 10 ponds where mining had gone on.The council filled it in and built a warehouse on it.Roll forward 15 years the same council then spent a fortune building ponds for the new Hitachi plant site to move any disturbed newts to.Problem was there were no newts left,the council had killed them all filling in those ponds years before.These are the people who say you cant build on green belt land.In short,idiots.

Very true but greenbelt is really about pretty views, not wildlife.  Buglife the inverterbrate charity has said the same as us but the Nimbies just want pretty views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

The 'super council' has drawn up its 20-year plan for 225,000 new homes - and a quarter of it would be on green belt, including in Bury, Salford, Stockport, Trafford, Oldham and Rochdale

"

Which bit annoys me most?
The super council as a concept - or building on green belt.

IMO You can build on greenbelt only when all the brownfield space is sorted out. Until then leave the green stuff alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Broadbent Moss and Beal Valley in Oldham


Beal Valley - dumping ground. Considered for golf course back in 2009.
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/31417/beal-valley-golf-course-bunkered

Oh no way before then
JOINT OFFICERS REPORT TO CABINET 15 APRIL 2004 THE BEAL VALLEY
The Council entered into a development agreement with P & C Casey Ltd in August 1995 by which a 18 hole golf course would be developed on land within the Beal Valley following a major landfill operation.
http://committees.oldham.gov.uk/Data/Cabinet/20040415/Minutes/$Item 8 Report.doc.pdf

So they're building on a tip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will affect where I live, some contentious green field and green belt going. No real improvement to infrastructure. Local brownfield allocations will now sit there. Land speculation pays off... houses not selling... along comes the government with some taxpayer cash.

Northern Powerhouse is marketing BS. Political vanity. Still, deals are done. Money talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, all areas which take about 45 minutes to get to the centre and that's with light traffic. Also areas that arent a place you'd particularly like to live bar maybe Cheadle Hulme. Im sure as with most post 2005 new builds they all come with the obligatory council housing next door. 

Seems to be missing the part about how they'll be dealing with Manchester traffic too.. M60, Mancunian Way, City Centre, Sardine can Metro? 

 

Still at least they're building.. 200K 3 bed semi anyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Very true but greenbelt is really about pretty views, not wildlife.  Buglife the inverterbrate charity has said the same as us but the Nimbies just want pretty views.

And why not? Crappy, ugly, overdeveloped places don't make for pleasant living conditions, but hey, far easier to bleat on about "nimbies" in the usual obnoxious HPC fashion. Having attractive surroundings is a big contributor towards quality of life. Sure there's an issue with overintensive farming, the solution isn't "build crap everywhere." I wander what sort of depressing future you lot actually want, I sure as hell don't want to live in it.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And why not? Crappy, ugly, overdeveloped places don't make for pleasant living conditions, but hey, far easier to bleat on about "nimbies" in the usual obnoxious HPC fashion. Having attractive surroundings is a big contributor towards quality of life. Sure there's an issue with overintensive farming, the solution isn't "build crap everywhere." I wander what sort of depressing future you lot actually want, I sure as hell don't want to live in it.

I agree you dont want to build crap everywhere.The point is sometimes its better to build on Farmer Jacks chemical sprayed desert of an oil seed rape field than on some Brownfield sites that are actually wildlife havens.Its also a fact that circa 1920s semis with hedgerows and big gardens have 1000s of % more wildlife per acre than most farmland.If they build houses now on some greenbelt land to those same sizes bio-diversity would shoot up,not down.

The problem we have now is they build crap on Brown Field sites and on some green belt land.The point is our housing policy is bonkers and fails everyone.(apart from rentiers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong solution to the problem, and both are arguably down to too many people (houses obviously, and the more people you've got the more means you need to find to feed them, even if we aren't self-sustaining food-wise). Better to export the wildlife from the brownfield sites by buying up a few fields and letting them go to scrub or woodland, then build on the brownfield sites, but that takes a bit more effort and money. Why do a good job when you can do a cheap one? Better still to not keep needing to continually expand towns and cities, making everyone's living environment increasingly unpleasant (something which covers more than the immediate vicinity of your house). Sure, we've fallen behind on building so need to catch up, but it really sickens me to see people cheering that on and bleating on about nimbies instead of regarding it as a depressing necessary evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And why not? Crappy, ugly, overdeveloped places don't make for pleasant living conditions, but hey, far easier to bleat on about "nimbies" in the usual obnoxious HPC fashion. Having attractive surroundings is a big contributor towards quality of life. Sure there's an issue with overintensive farming, the solution isn't "build crap everywhere." I wander what sort of depressing future you lot actually want, I sure as hell don't want to live in it.

Personally I think the ideal solution would be to make pro single parents share housing which would free up at least a million houses tomorrow and we should reduce immigration.  Sadly neither of these are likely and the third best solution would be build more homes.

My views from my home are being damaged by an ugly block of flats that are being built, I would rather that there were not built but I have my own home so I don't want to stop others from having theirs.  This is not the future that I want, but the best that is possible due to New and Blue Labour's benefit and immigration policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iamnumerate said:

Personally I think the ideal solution would be to make pro single parents share housing which would free up at least a million houses tomorrow and we should reduce immigration.  Sadly neither of these are likely and the third best solution would be build more homes.

My views from my home are being damaged by an ugly block of flats that are being built, I would rather that there were not built but I have my own home so I don't want to stop others from having theirs.  This is not the future that I want, but the best that is possible due to New and Blue Labour's benefit and immigration policy.

Building more has to be done in the short term. I accept that, although I really wish that it wasn't true. It would be easier to swallow though if we weren't run by people who seem to have no issue whatsoever with keeping that going indefinitely (presumably because by the time it gets so bad that even they'll notice it they'll be long dead).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   35 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.